Contributed by alex101. Posted by john on Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 10:00 AM (EDT)

Metallica have posted a number of live recordings for free via their site LiveMetallica. The shows span from the band's early days in 1982 through more recent shows in 2003. The move could be seen as somewhat surprising, given the band's history with downloadable media.

It's funny yet awesome that the free ones are the only shows anyone in their right mind would want to listen to anyway.

Bitrate is solid, a lot of these are TRUE bootlegs though -- audience, not soundboard, and the soundboard ones sound like they were recorded to consumer cassette. Cool for hardcore fans, not for casual listeners.

I'd point out two things. First, Metallica was never anti--downloading. They were anti-unauthorized downloading. second, Metallica said file sharing would destroy the music industry for both labels and bands... and they were right.

Bands are more broke then ever. I don't see how that is a good thing. We should reward artists, not punish them by taking their hard work against their will.

Also:
1. Ride the lightening
2. Injustice
3. Master
4. Kill em all
5. Live with orchestra
6. Black Album
I don't care about the rest...

Ha ha, true that. It's funny, the reason I call that album that is because when it originally came out, I got a bootleg t-shirt that said INjustice for all. For some reason, that has been wired into my brain for the last 22 years. Sheesh!

You're right we should reward artists ... not record execs. Seriously fuck those guys. The digital age helped and is helping to kill the record industry, the RIAA, and their ilk. Good riddance. Artists are doing just fine, since they can now control the means of distribution.

And that's going to have even the remotest effect how? Especially considering how anyone with half a brain is so anonymous when downloading the infringing materials that someone would have to be standing in their bedroom watching them to provide the necessary evidence to convict...?

How can you possibly imagine circumstances in which that wouldn't go horribly wrong for society if pursued? Where could it possibly end other than a new analogue to the drug war or a Great Firewall? The kids will always have superior technology and ingenuity; the hackers will always win the arms race on a level field. Which means the only way to stop it completely is by shutting the entire infrastructure that supports it down -- i.e. censoring the Internet. Like Iran or China. Which is where your position implicitly leads us in the end.

Neither of those things are new, of course. In any event, I wasn't suggesting that they would be uncalled for under existing law, but that they would DO NO GOOD. Which is why I compared it to the drug war. Drug prohibition has PLENTY of statutory history. That doesn't say anything about its effectiveness.

Anyway, do YOU know what HASN'T been around for 100 years?

Digital storage and replication of data.

Please read the Lessig book I posted above. It's a ground-level primer, but you need it. An IP attorney so hopelessly clueless about technological realities is in NO position to admonish others to educate themselves. Despite my constant pleading you apparently remain willfully ignorant on a subject that is ostensibly your focus.

Did you not notice my saying "if pursued?" I wasn't referring to existing policy, but the necessary conclusion of the PURSUIT of existing policy in a drug-war-like abject society-draining failure. The issue is with your reading comprehension.

Oh wait, I get it. You're STILL suggesting that digital media and traditional media are the same. So because fining bootleggers on the street worked in the past, it will work now...? I guess I just consider that stance so bonkers and non-representative of reality I exclude it completely from my speech.

Yes, for the love of strawman Christ, sanctions worked in the past with stuff. You're right. Anything else?

WHY do you believe suing random kids too dumb to use Tor will have any effect whatsoever? Why do you think that would be a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars and imposition of financial hardship on the guilty? Is there any reason to believe it would make the slightest dent in "piracy?"

Civil lawsuits are are pursued through private parties, not the government, thus tax payers do not directly pay for such suits. You appear to be deficient in knowledge in this matter- re: how a civil lawsuit works. Please do more research before commenting again.

I just find this conversation hilarious because Misanthrope is all "blahblahblah I learn everything from reddit" and johngentile is like "I'm a lawyer, you don't know what you're talking about, shut up please, you're making a fool of yourself"

Perhaps true, but you have to agree that for any band not on a major label, it is harder to make money as band now than ever before band it is directly attributable to illegal downloading. That is my point.

Perhaps true, but you have to agree that for any band not on a major label, it is harder to make money as a band now than ever before and it is directly attributable to illegal downloading. That is my point.

Not true at all. If anything downloading gives a band the opportunity to make exponentially more money. In most cases when someone downloads an album it is to hear whether it is worth listening to or not. That's not the loss of a sale but the potential for a sale that did not exist prior to the download; if the album is enjoyed. The person who downloaded said album is also more likely to support the band when they have the opportunity to see them live. In which case they may buy the album they already have downloaded, or maybe t-shirts and other merch. Which, if you didn't know bands don't make shit on album sales generally and receive a much better percentage of profit from merch sold at their shows. Independent bands stand to gain far more from file sharing than they lose precisely because you aren't going to hear them on the radio or see them on television. It's free promotion.

John stop talking like an RIAA lawyer and get your head out of your ass. Thanks.

You're funny. A lot of people other than the "execs" are getting hurt by illegal downloading. Those execs are likely making the same if not more than they used to. People like my wife, who got laid off from her marketing job at a record label are not fairing so well. "I'm going to illegally download because I'm only hurting rich white men" is an argument made by people who don't have the balls to say that they're illegally downloading because they don't want to pay for shit.

Stealing only ever hurts the small guy, from the case you described to gas station employees who have to pay out of pocket when someone pumps and runs. That being said, I steal music because not all the shit I expose myself to is worth my money. Impress me with your record and I'll buy it when you're in town. Also, anyone who thinks there's money to be made in punk and hardcore is deluded to the point of lunacy; I highly doubt most of the bands mentioned in the thread above have ever made a record with the expectation that they'd be able to feed a family with it. Does that make stealing their art justifiable? No, but I highly doubt the people in those bands feel unjustly robbed of that extra cash when they'd be broke anyways.